Exhaustion

Therein, the irony to Ramesh’s reference to the Miers episode, as it illustrates the proximate cause of the disaffection with Senator McCain and the possible attractiveness of Senator Obama to Reagan Democrats, Catholics, and I daresay even run-of-the-mill conservatives: the patience to give a Bush sequel yet more “benefit of the doubt” is exhausted. Frankly, many of us who answered Reagan’s call and came to Washington are tired of having only a theoretical commitment to budgetary restraint, limited government, the importance of ensuring the economic well-being of average families, and the lack of measurable progress on respect for life. ~Douglas Kmiec

Okay, I suppose I see Kmiec’s point, which is that Bushism has ignored or betrayed all of the things mentioned above and McCain represents a continuation of the Bush administration. That is all correct. Does it make any sense, then, to talk up the virtues of someone who has no theoretical commitment to budgetary restraint, limited government or respect for life, and who makes dubious proposals for “ensuring the economic well-being of average families”? More to the point, did it make any sense for him to work for the Romney campaign, when his entire candidacy was based on “only a theoretical commitment” to all of the things Kmiec finds important? If many Catholics find McCain to be on the wrong side of the war, how could they have found Romney to be any different? If many Catholics find McCain to be on the wrong side of the war, how can they indulge themselves in sympathy or support for Obama when he openly supported the bombardment of Lebanon? Kmiec’s arguments against McCain all make a certain amount of sense, but they work just as well against the candidate he supported and the one whom he now seems to be boosting.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 9 comments

9 Responses to Exhaustion

If many Catholics find McCain to be on the wrong side of the war, how could they have found Romney to be any different? If many Catholics find McCain to be on the wrong side of the war, how can they indulge themselves in sympathy or support for Obama when he openly supported the bombardment of Lebanon?

Again you are confusing real crazy with just pretending to be crazy, or saying crazy things to placate a super-strong lobby.

There is a difference.

Also, I go back the the cancer theory. The Republican party is sick. It must retch and lose its hair for a while in order to rid itself of the putrid cancer that now resides within it.

Once the Republicans see the price they paid for the war – full loss of power in virtually every area of government, will they be forced to face their mistake.

The authoritarian nature of the Republicans makes this the only way to achieve this. Look at the crazy attacks against the few Republicans that are against the war.

I literally get sick to my stomach at the thought of four more years of playing Don Quixote in Iraq. If McCain is elected they will crow that the American people want more of the same.

McCain is already starting to make crazy statements like “a time line for withdrawal is genocide”. That man has a lock on crazy.

Those are all solid points, but I have to wonder whether “pretending to be crazy” or politically-motivated craziness is actually that much of an improvement if the policies in question end up being much the same. McCain at least has the “excuse” that he seems to be temperamentally combative and genuinely reckless in his willingness to use force. Meanwhile, the other two have demonstrated an impressive lack of political courage.

It seems to me that it is in one respect much worse to have someone who knows better but acquiesces to the pressure of interests in a very foolish path–it lends a certain respectability and reasonableness to the sort of policy that is, in fact, dangerous and wrong. You can even see how his wild-eyed can-do optimism could translate into irresponsible war fever in the event of heightened tensions: “The defeatists and cynics said we couldn’t invade Iran, but we said, Yes, we can.”

What troubles me so much about Obama’s support for the bombing of Lebanon is not just the craven political calculation that went into it, but the way that it completely destroys any credibility he has when claiming sound judgement on such matters. It means that he will bow to pressure despite his supposed willingness to resist the clamouring of special interests and that his one moment of foreign policy wisdom was an accidental result of happening to be from a very Democratic part of a very Democratic state. Besides, whatever the reason why he did it, it still put him on the wrong side of what ought to have been the obvious position for a progressive (or a conservative) to take. Someone who caves that easily is not someone who will be able to push back against the resistance to withdrawing from Iraq, and could pretty easily be pulled into another conflict or intervention.

“Someone who caves that easily is not someone who will be able to push back against the resistance to withdrawing from Iraq, and could pretty easily be pulled into another conflict or intervention.”

Indeed. He’s already working himself some wiggle room on withdrawal. I recall at a debate, a question asked of all candidates (Edwards was still in at this point) “would you commit that all US forces will be out by January 20, 2013. All three of the big D’s said “No”

Well, the point is revealed in the “Catholic” part of Kmiec’s email: that Catholic moral teaching enjoins us to work to transform the culture in every vineyard, not just those that are friendly and so forth. This follows with some moral concerns Kmiec has that conflict with McCain’s national security conservative stances which are countered balanced by Obama wish-talk and the “uniter not a divider” stuff being an openness to religious conservatives.

So I think he’s hoping that be getting on the Obama wave now, the Lord shall work through him and other Catholic supporters to ultimately “fix” the obvious areas that Obama is in variance with Kmiec’s understanding of Catholic social teaching. A sophisticated “lesser of two evils” buoyed by a miracle perhaps? I saw a similar argument made by a conservative Catholic for Giuliani.